Maia Falconi-Sachs v. LPF Senate Square, LLC

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part the dismissal of Maia Falconi-Sachs’s claims concerning a $249.85 late-rent fee. The court affirmed dismissal of claims under the Consumer Protection Procedure Act, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unconscionability. It held that the unjust enrichment claim was adequately pleaded because the lease’s late-fee provision could constitute an unenforceable penalty, and that the voluntary payment doctrine was an affirmative defense not appropriately resolved on a motion to dismiss.

Holdings

1. The Consumer Protection Procedure Act does not apply to claims arising from landlord-tenant relations; dismissal of Falconi-Sachs's CPPA claims was proper.
2. The fraud claim was properly dismissed because the alleged representation concerned a matter of law rather than a misrepresentation of material fact.
3. The negligent misrepresentation claim was properly dismissed because the alleged misrepresentation concerned law, not a material fact.
4. The unconscionability claim was properly dismissed because common-law unconscionability generally operates as an affirmative defense rather than an independent cause of action for damages.
5. The existence of a lease did not automatically foreclose Falconi-Sachs's unjust enrichment claim because the claim alleged that the late-fee provision was invalid or unenforceable.
6. The complaint adequately pleaded that the ten-percent late fee was disproportionate to reasonably foreseeable damages and therefore potentially an unenforceable penalty; whether the fee was an improper penalty was a factual question not resolvable on a motion to dismiss.
7. The voluntary payment doctrine did not support dismissal because it is an affirmative defense, and the complaint neither established the defense on its face nor conclusively admitted facts requiring its application.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Consumer Protection Procedure Act applies to claims arising from a landlord-tenant relationship.
2. Whether the complaint adequately pleaded fraud or negligent misrepresentation based on appellees' alleged representation that the late fee and related charges were legally due.
3. Whether unconscionability may be asserted as an affirmative cause of action for damages or restitution.
4. Whether the complaint adequately pleaded unjust enrichment despite the existence of a lease and the plaintiff's payment of the late fee.
5. Whether the voluntary payment doctrine supported dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
6. Whether the alleged invalidity of the late-fee provision and the amount of anticipated damages presented factual questions unsuitable for resolution on a motion to dismiss.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded